It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
martin.kleppmann.com
It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
1–7 of 7 posts
Re: It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
#2If it wasn't for GPL, GNU and Linux would never mattered, UNIX clones, Windows would keep taking whatever they wanted from BSD and that would be it.
In fact that may be the future, given that all FOSS competing for a spotlight on IoT space use permissive licenses.
If in 20 years from now everything looks like AOSP only worse, don't complain.
Re: It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
#3The ol': we dont like what this group is doing, so instead lets explicitly give them permission to do it, argument.
Re: It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
#4So all of the arguments provided are really in favor of saying goodbye to the AGPL because it's not strong enough. Or opening the floodgates and just use permissive licenses.
The GPL license remains great for what it was intended for.
Re: It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
#5The blog post points to cloud software as "the [new] enemy of freedom in computing", but then advocates for using permissive licenses (MIT, BSD, or Apache, instead of, say, AGPL) while "counteracting the monopolising effects of cloud software, developing sustainable business models that allow open source software to thrive, and pushing for regulation that prioritises the interests of software users over the interests of vendors".
Isn't AGPL helpful for that?
Re: It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
#6> My collaborators and I have previously argued for local-first software, which is a response to these problems with cloud software.
What’s ironic is that this was actually Microsoft’s vision of computing. Bill Gates wanted your Windows Desktop, that you installed local applications on, to be the hub for your computing life.
However, powered by open source software such as Linux and GCC, companies were able to shift the locus of computing from the user’s computer to their computers.
This has resulted in a huge loss of control for the average user. Their data now is no longer owned by them in a technical sense. Whereas in the past, even with closed source software, they owned their data, and worst case, someone could reverse engineer the machine code to modify the software. Now with cloud software, there is zero chance of that.
In some ways, the FSF helped catalyze even greater loss of user freedom.
Re: It's time to say goodbye to the GPL
#7The blog post points to cloud software as "the [new] enemy of freedom in computing", but then advocates for using permissive licenses (MIT, BSD, or Apache, instead of, say, AGPL) while "counteracting the monopolising effects of cloud software, developing sustainable business models that allow open source software to thrive, and pushing for regulation that prioritises the interests of software users over the interests…
Kleppmann addresses that in the article:
https://martin.kleppmann.com/2021/04/14/goodbye-gpl.html#leg...
> However, this hasn’t really worked: most vendors of cloud software simply refuse to use AGPL-licensed software, and either use a different implementation with a more permissive license, or re-implement the necessary functionality themselves, or buy a commercial license that comes without the copyleft clauses.
The AGPL's protections would mean more if there were no alternative implementations available under other licenses. But there will always be alternatives.